User:Peter/AC

Subpage for my Admin Coaching. Primarily for use by Academic Challenger and Knowledge Seeker, my coaches, however anyone is invited to add relevant comments. Petros471 09:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

General observations from Knowledge Seeker

 * Petros, thanks for setting this up. I've only briefly perused your talk page and some of your messages so far, but the initial impression I get is quite favorable. I'll try to go through in more detail later, though I can't be sure that I will find everything that RfA voters can dredge up. Your attitude and knowledge appear to be very compatible with adminship, and you're the kind of candidate I'd like to see on RfA. So far I just have one piece of advice: consider checking the spelling of your edits prior to submission. I think there are some JavaScript extensions or something you can download to run spell-checks for you; I'll look into it (what browser do you use?). It just adds an air of credibility and professionalism to your writing, especially among a community engaged in writing an encyclopedia. Also, I don't know your age or education level (nor am I trying to get personal information out of you), but sometimes poor spelling can make one seem sloppy or juvenile. Not that there's anything wrong with younger contributors being administrators, but good spelling/grammar makes one appear more mature (it helps when dealing with difficult editors, as well). Of course, I wouldn't expect occasional spelling errors to break someone's RfA (although I recall one candidacy in which many of the oppose votes were due to the candidate's poor use of English [his native language]), it's just one small thing that'd help a bit, I think. Anyway I'll take a more detailed look at your contributions, but I think you're definitely on the right track! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I know my spelling is appalling. Believe it or not I usually do use a spell-check and the preview button, it'd be *a lot* worse if I didn't. I use Opera browser most of the time, and that has a built in spell check, though sometimes if I'm not on my computer I don't have access to that and those posts might not get checked. The grammar is probably me being stupid! Thanks for the positive comments, and I look forward to you digging out as much bad stuff as you can find so I can try and get rid of it!. I've put some section headings up for easier reference in future, and some questions below.


 * Glad to hear it. Another thing that will help, long-term, is reading high-quality literature. Obviously books like your teacher recommended/recommends. Or even good-quality magazines like Scientific American or Time. Anyway keep using your spelling checker, and try to learn from what it corrects. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

 * Pointing towards the posts on full version of talk archive 1, section 17 and 19-21, what do you think of me getting involved with, and subsequent handling of the Dreamguy/Elonka dispute? Petros471 11:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Following on from that how should I handle similar future situations? Petros471 11:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Any other general advice about mediation/helping to resolve disputes between other editors? Petros471 11:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Article contributions

 * I haven't create or expanded many articles. I've seen very mixed reactions to this on RfA- sometimes people who contribute a lot to articles seem to get 'rewarded' with adminship because of that, other times it seems they get loads of oppose because they wouldn't use admin tools. Vice versa other people get opposed for low article contributions, others get admin because they are vandal fighters. Personally I doubt I will become a prolific article writer, that simply isn't my strength. I strongly believe Wikipedia is big enough(!) for different types of editor and that they can all contribute in different ways, and that all are important to the overall goal of building an encyclopedia. However, do you think this would be held against me on a RfA? Petros471 11:04, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have seen people opposed on the basis of insufficient article writing. But at least at first glance you have a decent mix of contributions. I'm not as thorough as some of the RFA regulars, I'm afraid, but I will take a more detailed look tomorrow hopefully. If it comes down to it, participation in the "policy" side of Wikipedia is more important&mdash;vandal fighting, AfD participation, copyvios, that kind of thing. I must say that your response at User talk:Petros471 was just what I'd like to see in an administrator&mdash;responding coolly and rationally no matter what the provocation. If this is typical of your style (and from what I see, it is), then you'll make a great administrator candidate. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A more thorough analysis hasn't revealed any flags, at least as far as I could see. Everything I've seen suggests you would be a great candidate. I don't really have any other suggestions. Just continue your positive attitude and polite approach to handling conflicts. As I mentioned before, some of the voters carefully scrutinize an editor's contributions, and may dig up something I haven't come across, but that seems doubtful. Keep up the good work! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

General Observations from Academic Challenger
I agree with what Knowledge Seeker has said. You are a great contributor to the project and are well on the way to becoming a possible RFA candidate. Spelling is a major weakness that you have, but even some admins also have trouble with that. I have only glanced at your talk page and last few contributions, but I will try to come up with more to say later. I will also check out the DreamGuy dispute that you were involved in. As for your lack of creating new articles, it is possible that there may be a few oppose votes on that basis, but probably not. I can't speak from personal expeirence, because I was mainly an article creator/expander until I became an admin, and then I suddenly began doing admin tasks, but the criteria was somewhat different when I became an admin a year and a half ago. Now it is more likely that someone like you dedicated to fixing disputes in articles would have less trouble getting adminship. Academic Challenger 02:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

More observations from Academic Challenger
I haven't seen any cases so far where you did the wrong thing, though I will mention them if I find them. I have recently began to follow RFA again. I read Noconcantari's nomination, which I know you saw because you voted on it, and it seems that people still feel uncomfortable with people who only fight vandalism or only write articles becoming admins. You seem to have a good balance. Though you do fight vandalism a lot and participate in community issues, you also participate in some article writing and expansion, and IMHO you really could use adminship for your vandal-fighting and community activities. I see from your edit count that you have over 2000 edits, which is less than many admins nowadays but still enough I think. You also began contributing in August but really didn't become active until December, meaning that you basically have about three months of deep Wikipedia experience, the minimum for adminship. But, I think that you could try a nomination in two or three weeks. You can try a self-nomination or you can ask me or another user to nominate you, although I have never nominated anyone before so I am not very comfortable with the formatting. So, keep up the good work and hopefully in a few weeks you will be an admin. Academic Challenger 23:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback! I'd certainly be interested in being nominated in a couple of weeks- I would probably prefer to be nominated rather than do a self-nom, partly because some people hold higher standards for self-noms and partly because I think it's better to show that someone else thinks you are ready. Not that I oppose other people self-nominating. Petros471 10:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't worry too much about the formating as that can always be fixed before posting the to main RfA page (which I think I'm allowed to do, so I can take the blame!) Petros471 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

RfA time?
Let's see if you keep this page on your watchlist (don't worry I'll give you an orange bar if you don't!)

I was wondering if one (or both as joint) of you would be willing to put together a nomination for me? I don't know if asking is treated the same as self-nom, but as I'm not against self-noms I don't suppose it matters!

RfA has been a bit crazy recently, with some results that have surprised me (in both directions); so from my point of view I don't really know if I have much chance of succeeding in an RfA or not. You both seem pretty positive though, and if it does end up as 'unsuccessful' I think the feedback would be useful. Also I'm not sure if another few weeks is going to make a lot of difference, so might as well go for it now and either get that mop, or if it is strongly opposed wait a while and try again later. Sound good? Petros471 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. I've been working on my answers to the standard questions in my test area, feel free to take a look. I might still change them a bit, and you're welcome to comment. Petros471 21:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you feel ready to be nominated, I think you should be. As I said in another section, I've never nominated anyone before so I'm not sure I should be the one to do it, but I'm sure that Knowledge Seeker and I should be able to figure it out. As you said, if you don't get adminship this time it's not a big deal, you can be renominated in a few months, and you will be noticed by more people. I actually applied for adminship way too early and lost, but was renominated six months later. Academic Challenger 00:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok then, can I accept your offer and let you put together a nomination? I'll accept it/post to WP:RFA when I'm ready (within a week or so I guess). Petros471 23:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to assist with any of the technical matters of the nomination, and of course I plan to support it, but I'm not ready to be one of the nominators. It's not that I don't think that you'll make a fine candidate; I think you will. But in my year and a half I have only nominated two users (Ta bu shi da yu and Encephalon). Nominating someone is making a much stronger statement than simply supporting; I had extensive experience with both of those users over several months and was extremely confident in their suitability for adminship. Everything I've seen from you shows you'll be an excellent administrator, and I'll be the second to support (unless I beat the nominator hehe). I'm just not on Wikipedia enough these days to be familiar with everyone like I used to. I'll put a skeleton nomination together though. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's up at User:Knowledge Seeker/Petros471. Academic Challenger, Petros, feel free to edit it at your leisure. Let me know if you need help. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Petros, I read your message on my talk page and I will go read the nomination now. By the way, I may be rather busy for the next week also. By the way, you accidentally wroteAfd instead of RFA in your message on my talk page. I know you know what the difference between them is and I corrected it, but I wanted to let you know. Be careful about this in the future, especially during your nomination. It was pretty funny though. Academic Challenger 23:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeh, 'tis pretty funny :) Hope I haven't done that to anyone else by accident... (I do know the diffrence perfectly well, just one of those weird brain things!). Knowledge Seeker: Can you take a look at it and do you think it is ready for being accepted later next week? Petros471 10:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)